Dækning

Diverse — Drokles on March 7, 2010 at 2:07 pm

Danmarks Radios dækning af, hvad der tegner til at blive den største videnskabelige skandale nogensinde er mildt sagt sær kunne jeg se hos Universalgeniet. DR2 Udland havde den 2. marts i år dette indslag om chefen for East Anglia Climate Research Unit Phil Jones og hans vidneri i sagen mod ham og hans svindelnumre

En britisk forsker der har været mistænkt for at gøre klimaproblemerne værre end de egentlig er bryder nu flere måneders tavshed.” indledes indslaget med og før jeg fortørnet udbryder “Hvad fanden mener værten med “Værre end de er”?” osv. skal det lige slås fast at han ikke bryder tavsheden, men vidner i en sag imod ham. Og anklagen mod CRU og Phil Jones var ikke at de ville “skjule de positive sider af klimaforandringerne“, som Danmarks Radio fortæller den intetanende licensbetaler for det beskæftigede de sig slet ikke med, men at Jones et. al. havde fortalt om klimaforandringer der ikke fandt sted. Temperaturen har været stabil de seneste 10 år og alle klimaforandringer man mener at måtte se kan altså ikke have en global forklaring, men en lokal, hvilket udelukker CO2, der ikke har det med at klumpe sammen. Indslaget slutter med at konstatere at Phil Jones benægtede at have holdt noget skjult - andet en “the decline” vel. At Phil Jones indtager det standpunkt er måske ikke så mærkeligt endda.

Phil Jones har i et interview med BBC for et par uger siden allerede brudt tavsheden og indrømmelserne af at have forpurret sit videnskabelige felt og løjet for offentligheden for deres egne skattekroner, mens politikerne på den baggrund gjorde sig klar til at omkalfatre det økonomiske system og overgive national og demokratisk suverænitet til et korrupt og 3.verdensinficeret FN burde være en stor historie for en TV-station. Phil Jones anerkender dog ikke konsekvenserne af de svar han selv giver, men det behøver han heller ikke

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

billede-3

Vi er på vej ud af den Lille Istid så naturligvis stiger temperaturen globalt. Den Lille Istid og før den den middelalderlige varmeperiode var udsving i temperaturen, som forgik uanfægtet af menneskelig aktivitet og er altså drevet af noget andet og meget kraftigt, som der ikke den dag i dag er helt enighed om hvad var. Pointen er den banale at den alarmerende stigning i temperaturen, som på en gang er truslen vi skal forholde os til og selve beviset på vores synder ikke eksisterer. At tegnene på en potentielt klimatrussel, endsige katastrofe tilsyneladende var løgn bliver uddybet

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Udtrykket statisktisk signifikant signifikerer ifølge Sir Humphrey Appelby det signifikante ved ordet signifikant.

billede-4

El Nino fra 1998 gav et stort udsving på temperaturskalaen, der er afstedkommet har gjort kurvens glatte udvikling vanskelig at bedømme præcist, men fra midten af halvfjerserne steg temperaturen og har siden omkring 2000 ligget stabilt, men med en statistisk usignifikant tendens til afkøling. Det naturlige skæringspunkt er altså det nye årtusinde og ikke 1995, men ved at føre statistikken tilbage til 1995 får Jones lov til at sige at der har været en stigning i de seneste 15 års tid omend meget lille og får dermed antydet at han og hans team ikke lyver så meget som de måske har overdrevet en tendens - i en god sags tjeneste forstås. Alle kan jo lade sig rive med af en begejstring uden af have sinistre planer.

Men 10 år er altså for kort en tid til at sige noget meningsfuldt, så de seneste par års FN genererede løgne på baggrund af bl.a. Jones’ arbejde om at temperaturen konkret var stigende sløres af denne pludselige hang til forsigtige udmeldinger og statistisk signifikans. Svaret til spørgsmål D emmer af den forsigtighed man så længe har savnet

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

Hans fesne hvis-man-begrænser-til-nogle-bestemte-faktorer-så-kunne-man-måske-forvente-svar er så langt fra den skråsikkerhed, der skal ligne et konsensus, som man kan komme. Og der er som sagt kun fem år til at der er gået 15 år fra 2000 og så fanger bordet ifølge Jones egen logik. Udover at vi i øjeblikket har en El Nino, som bliver modsvaret i La Nina på et tidspunkt så tyder intet på at temperaturen står overfor en acceleration opad.

Men indrømmelser går videre, for at finde ud af hvilken tid vi lever i må vi kunne sætte den i relief på baggrund af historien.

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

Middelalderens varmeperiode bliver fejlagtigt til den eneste målestok for fortilfælde når det blot burde være at regne for det seneste fortilfælde kun adskilt fra vores tid af den Lille Istid. Og det er også værd at bemærke at skønt Jones har ret i at man ikke har globale proxydata, der kan bevise den har man heller ikke noget, der taler imod at den skulle være global. Alt hvad man har af data, skønt det ikke er komplet, tegner et billede af en global varmeperiode der var varmere end nu og hvor civilisationen trivedes og menneskelivet var bedre. Her er altså det manglende fortilfælde, som FN gennem Michael Manns berømte Hockey-stok graf (Det er en Is-hockeystok rent faktisk da Hockeystokkens form er en statistisk umulighed) forsøgte at slette fra vores historie. Her er tale om ægteklima-benægtelse.

Jones slår fast at han trods de mange anomalier er 100% overbevist om at vi oplever en menneskeskabt global opvarmning med dette videnskabelige argument

H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

Ok og vi spørger så Svensmark, hvorfor han er sikker på sin kosmisk strålingsteori og hører ham svare: “Fordi vi ikke kan forklare det med CO2 og vulkanisk aktivitet” osv. Svaret er i sin essens en bekræftelse på at man ikke aner, hvad der driver klimaet og hvorledes de forskellige faktorer spiller sammen, hvilket vil sige at konsensus er stendød.

Professor Bob Carter trækker på Quadrant Online klimahysteriet tilbage til NASAs James Hansen, der i 1988 vidnede for kongressen og fortalte, hvorledes det hele så ud til at skride. Hansen skrev i 2004 om nytten af overdrivelse i den gode sags tjeneste

“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic”.

Dette betegner Carter som hansenisme og trækker en historisk parallel

Histories of science contain an account of the ideological control of Soviet biology during the mid-20th century by plant scientist Trofim Lysenko, who by 1940 had risen to be Director of the influential Institute of Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Lysenko and his supporters rejected the “dangerous Western concepts” of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution. They preferred the Lamarckian view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics; for instance, that cows could be trained to give more milk and their offspring would then inherit this trait.

Whilst this was not an unreasonable hypothesis to erect in the early 19th century, by the 1930s the idea had been tested in many ways and was known to be wrong. Requiring its application to agricultural and allied biological research in the USSR was disastrous, not least in the vicious persecution of scientists that took place, and the legacy of this sad episode still disadvantages Soviet biology today.

Lysenkoism grew from four main roots:

  • a necessity to demonstrate the practical relevance of science to the needs of society;
  • the amassing of evidence to show the “correctness” of the concept as a substitute for causal proof;
  • noble cause corruption, whereby data are manipulated to support a cause which is seen as a higher truth; and
  • ideological zeal, such that dissidents are silenced as “enemies of the truth”.

The first of these roots has been strongly represented in Australian government attitudes to the funding of science as far back as the 1980s. The remaining three roots exemplify closely the techniques that are currently used by global warming alarmists in pursuit of their aims – as recently exposed for all to see by the Climategate and IPCCgate scandals.

Lysenkoism damaged mainly Soviet science and society, whereas Hansenism has now been exerting its pernicious influence worldwide for more than twenty years. The climate alarmism involved has long been undermining the precious public trust from which science draws its traditional influence and sustenance, and now Climategate has opened up new sinkholes all over the place.

Som sagt, lidt af en historie for Danmarks Radio, hvis de gerne vil være et ledende nyhedsmedie i stedet for blot forbruger af tre og en halv mia. af licensbetalernes penge.

——————————————————————————————–

UPDATE:

Press Release

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data. All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Goran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
112 27 Stockholm, Sweden

See PDF of letter here.

1 Kommentar »

  1. Bill Gates er også blevet sær på sine gamle dage. Her er han fra februar 9-13, 2010. Han har altså vidst bedre. Skandalerne havde allerede rullet længe. Videoen er lige blevet frigivet: http://universalgeni.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/video-bill-gates-har-tabt-hovedet/

    Comment by Universalgeni — March 7, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress